Quote Originally Posted by Lapak View Post
Which is why I can't say I like this suggestion too much; it tips the balance too far the other way. Once dagger-guy gets into range - which he almost certainly will, since one sword thrust isn't enough to put him down - the advantage shifts to him for the rest of the combat, and the question becomes 'why would anyone use a weapon larger than a dagger?' instead of 'why would anyone use a weapon smaller than a sword?' I'm not sure that the lower damage of a dagger is enough to offset a -4 penalty to hit for the sword-wielder.

I like it in principle, though; I just think it ends up throwing things too far in the other direction. I haven't play-tested it or anything, though; I could be wrong.
Unless I misread something, it's very easy for sword-guy (um... not the poster here by that name, any person using a sword, which i guess could include him) to take a step back and reestablish the 5ft range, attacking without penalty. Basically, in this sort of one-on-one fight you're moving 5ft backwards every round. The dagger-guy is pressing the advantage, which doesn't seem quite right; I'm not saying he can't win, but it seems odd for him to be able to be so aggressive, so easily, and not get smacked down for it.